“THE U. S. SUPREME COURT GETS IT RIGHT IN ARIZONA V. GANT: JUSTIFICATIONS FOR RULES PROTECT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS”

Shenequa L. Grey, Southern University Law Center

Abstract

In Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009), the United States Supreme Court recently revisited the search of an arrestee’s vehicle pursuant to the “search incident to a lawful arrest” exception to the warrant requirement. The Court held that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if: (1) the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search; or (2) if it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. This decision resolved long debated issues regarding the applicability of this exception as it relates to vehicles.

In establishing these limitations on the exception, the Court in Gant re-examined the original purpose and justification for establishing the exception in prior decisions and concluded that the rule was clearly based on evidentiary and safety interests. As a result, the Court rejected theories offered to support expansion of the rule, and limited the exception to only those situations when the underlying evidentiary and safety interests are legitimately at stake. In establishing these limitations, Gant overruled prior decisions allowing automatic searches of an arrestee’s vehicle.

This exception is only one of several exceptions and numerous other principles established by the court based upon specific justifications that warrant dispensing with constitutional requirements. This decision seems to be a part of a recent trend of the United States Supreme Court to hold true to those original justifications of rules in deciding new cases before it. Gant also demonstrates the Court’s intent to revert back to those underlying justifications when its decisions have diverted from the original purpose for establishing the principle.

This trend was recently demonstrated in Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (2006), where the Court re-examined the purpose and justification of the “exclusionary rule” to conclude that it did not require the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the “knock and announce” rule. In overruling decades of precedent excluding such evidence, the court concluded that exclusion was inappropriate because it did not further the purpose and goal of the exclusionary rule. This decision like Gant overruled decades of precedent and adhered to the original justification of the exclusionary rule.

This article demonstrates how the justifications or rationales upon which legal principles are developed form the basis for compliance with the United States Constitution; and that therefore, failure to comply with those justifications leads to unconstitutional government activity. This article demonstrates that strict compliance with the underlying justifications is essential to protecting individual constitutional rights.